Google Maps Becomes Wiki-Like
Readers of my blog should know by now that I stand by the wiki, a kind of freely-editable website. Google got into the wiki business, sort of, when they acquired Jot (not Jott; that's something else) and developed it -- after many months -- into Google Sites. Which is a wiki-that's-not-a-wiki.
Well, recently Google Maps got some updates that make it also a wiki-that's-not-a-wiki. Users from the United States, New Zealand, and Australia can now add, edit, and delete places in Google Maps. (That Google Operating System post has tons of screenshots, so just head over there to see them if you're interested. It saves me the time it would take to make my own. 
)
The edit function has been around for a while, but was limited to placemark location. Now the details can be edited as well, including address, name, and all the works.
In addition, places can now be added and removed, though removals require Google's approval.
So what's with all this community-based stuff? I have a feeling Google is capitalizing on the same forces that helped build sites like Wikipedia. That is, the wisdom of the crowds. Most people jump at the chance to add a missing entry to a database they use; it makes them more likely to use that resource if others can add missing information.
I already use Google Maps over MapQuest or Windows Live Local (I think that's what Microsoft calls it now). All these new things just keep me coming back. One of these days I'll have to try adding a missing listing just to see how it works. That just means I have to find one.
Interesting Thoughts: People Ratings
Brought to my attention by Google Blogoscoped, I think Reza Behforooz has an interesting idea in his post on Washington's (the state, not the city in D.C.) recent legislation to have DUI drivers sport yellow license plates. I quote his thoughts and ideas:
I love reputation based systems like eBay and wikipedia. It's a good way to build trust and fight spam. I personally wish there was an easy way for people to have a publicly visible reputation that was influenced by anyone. Imagine a world where people could easily point their cell phone at you and give you a plus or a minus vote. If you let someone merge in, the other driver can give you a small star. If you stop and help someone with a flat tire, you might get lots of stars. If you cut people off or cheat on the carpool lane, you get bad karma. That's similar to PageRank. We all look at reviews for movies, restaurants, books, hotels, etc. And we look at the star rating on youtube, netflix, etc. Why not have it for people? There are now web sites that do this for professors and classes at universities. An open reputation based system is so much more effective than the usual student reviews for university faculty. Now imagine we did that in the office for everyone.
I don't know why, but it kind of strikes me as being a good idea. Community ratings play a large role in online systems, so why not apply them to the real-world? After all, everyone has a reputation anyway. Being able to point your cell phone at people and give them a sort of "star" rating (seen on sites like YouTube, Google Video, and many others) could be the next big way to provide, say, law enforcement with a means to identify problem citizens. If people consistently get one-star ratings, that could be a sign that they're doing something wrong. 
Chris Pirillo’s Thoughts on Bad Grammar: Same As Mine
As usual, I'm going to ask you to watch the video first before reading my comments:
There, all done? Good, now I can comment away!
This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy, too. I don't know if anyone notices, but I try to keep my English as perfect as I can here on my blog, in my email, on Wikipedia... The list of places where I write goes on -- and in each and every location, I try to use scholarly-sounding English that won't have me embarrassing my school, my parents, or (most importantly) myself.
Chris says he gets emails like that all the time. I can relate; I see loads upon loads of messages like that on Wikipedia, in online school discussion boards, and forums across the Internet. Fortunately, most of the people I correspond with via email and IM have a firm grasp of the English language, and only make mistakes when they're intentional (say they're ignoring the rules for the sake of typing speed). Only a very few people I know personally mutilate English.
So, I beg the world, please watch how you write. It drives geeks like me, Chris, my friend i80and, and all kinds of other people absolutely crazy to try and interpret sentences like, "r u srsly gnna get widnows vitsa? u cnat possiby b srs abt tht!"
That's my rant for the day, then.
Milestone: 3,500 Wikipedia Contributions
About midnight, I hit 3,500 contributions on Wikipedia. Yipes! I updated my userpage to reflect it (I have a box for estimated contribs). Next update will probably be around 4,000, since updating every 100 leaves only 99 edits that can actually be constructive. Rather than 1%, I rather have 0.2% unconstructive edits. So my edit count updates shall suffer. It's either that or write a bot to update my counter every day... Not likely.
Interesting: Wikipedia Became a Class Assignment
Most college professors cringe at the thought of their students using Wikipedia for anything class-related. Many colleges and universities have even gone so far as to have guidelines for writing papers that forbid citing Wikipedia. Whether the guidelines are in writing as official school policy or passed on informally by professors (via vocal or written communication on introductory days), they are the norm today. But one professor at the University of Washington-Bothell, Martha Groom, turned Wikipedia into an assignment for her undergraduates.
A teacher of environmental history, she requires at the end of the semester not a term paper, but an original Wikipedia article (or a major improvement of an existing one). The experiment has been "transformative" for her students, and their writing quality on Wikipedia is over and above standard undergraduate research papers.
Supposedly, some editors "were a little rude," she said, referring to anonymous users (likely those despicable vandals). The users that were not rude helped the students gain experience in the real world of peer-reviewed writing.
I really hope my college professors do this...
3,000 Wikipedia Contributions
Well, it's actually been a while since I passed the 3,000-edit mark on Wikipedia, but now I have reasonable assurance that external edit counters will also show it, not just the internal api.php output. But anyway, I'm very happy about it. The secret to doing this is to ignore everything else you're supposed to be doing and sneak off to Wikipedia to watch for vandalism. Yes, you can get behind in school (or your work), but isn't improving the Internet's best free encyclopedia worth it?
(Note: That was a joke; I do not advocate getting behind in anything for the sole purpose of editing Wikipedia.)
My Sig…Gone (Again)
Ok, more complaints about my signature. I had to change it again. It's plain text now, with superscript and subscript for variety. Oh well. Some things just don't last. At least I didn't have to change my nickname... Now I can finally go back to my normal routine without worrying about anything.
Contributions for Deleted Articles are Deleted?!
It turns out that, on any MediaWiki site, deleting a page removes those contributions from the users that edited the page. Bah! Now I know why Speedy-Delete tags aren't found much in user contribs...though I would appreciate my contributions being attributed to ME, even after the article is deleted...
My Sig…Back
After a little more editing and other stuff, I found a better way to have my Wikipedia signature: use a template. I got some tips from Eacz12, who uses a template for their signature, and did the same thing. It works fine. WP:SIG says not to use templates in sigs, but it cites cache updates as the reason. Since I don't plan to change my signature, I don't think this is an issue. If I do decide to change it (a remote possibility), it'll update on all pages. Neat, huh?
One Thousand and Counting
I just hit 1,000 edits on the English Wikipedia! Granted, a lot of them are AfD votes and vandal reverts, but they all count. I made Wikipedia a better project, and all in less than a year. I wonder where I'll be at by the one-year anniversary of my joining Wikipedia? 1,500? 2,000?
Social Me
Badges
Subscription Options
Latest Comments
- Voyagerfan5761 on “No Evil”: My NET10 Wireless Experiences
- dogbonz on “No Evil”: My NET10 Wireless Experiences
- Voyagerfan5761 on “No Evil”: My NET10 Wireless Experiences
Latest Posts
Archives
Categories
Creations
Southwest High Robotics Team My first non-personal design work
Promotions, Causes, Etc.
- Yes, it's a shameless plug for money. A strange thing coming from me, but it supports one of the Web's greatest sites.
- I'm sure you saw this one coming. You know what I want.
- Set yourself up with OpenDNS, the fastest DNS service around! You can also set up shortcuts for frequently visited sites and filter content.
- Download the best multi-protocol IM client I've ever seen! So it crashes once in a while, but it's in active development, so they're definitely working on it. (And really, what program doesn't crash once in a while?)
- Don't let Microsoft push through a redundant, broken standard for office files! Chaos and confusion could ensue!
- This is just in case spam-bots visit this site. Click it to find out more (it only does bad things to email harvesters, don't worry).
Blogged.com says I have to leave its badge here to claim ownership of this site. I can't take it off, apparently. Whatever. What would be nice is linking to my own site's page rather than generic "technology news" listings...
blogarama and Blog Flux have similar, but implied, issues. And why does everyone link me to a generic listing page?!